Jump to content

Edman85

Where did Henning Get this?

Recommended Posts

You also have to remember Henning probably has a better grasp on the talent of these players than maybe a few of us do.

Speak for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but what Edman did in his blog and with this thread is sloppy. He accused someone of something not only here but in his blog. He did so without any real facts. And he did so despite the fact that we now have a few people admitting here that "I can see where he came up with that conclusion." Lee, were those projections really that wacked out that he had to get them from some place? I know you know the answer to that - it's no. But he directly assumed they came from something that he did and tore him apart for it. He had every chance to ask him about it in advance, but didn't do it. Instead he accused - that's wrong and very unprofessional.

He should've given Henning a chance to respond first - especially when Henning probably knows enough about these guys to make an educated guess and didn't say anything that Earth-shattering that "he had to have inside information." And I don't think it comes across as anything more than that - he's creating an opinion.

I know you want to support a friend and a fellow blogger. I am not here to rip on Edman (actually I kind of used him in another thread this week even though his post really didn't bother me - you'll have to read the thread to understand). I respect his opinions and I've used his numbers many times to either confirm my opinions or to say "if he says that am I wrong somewhere" in the HOF. I want to support him here. But I don't think he's come close to proving what he's stating happened here. And even if he was right, he certainly didn't go through the proper channels to at least give it a chance to make it right.

To the first bolded part, who here besides yourself admitted this?

To the second bolded point, Edman accused Lynn in his blog and a message board. Is professionalism required in either medium as opposed to a newspaper column?

My take on the whole thing - and it is only opinion, feel free to dismiss if one would like - is Lynn used the turn of phrase, "player X is probably a type A free agent." For me, using probably in this context means:

a) it is an obvious classification for one to make, or

b) if it is not obvious, then I studied the information sufficiently to state with certainty, or

c) if I didn't study it, I cite a source that did study it.

I don't think the clasifications are obvious. Further, if I spit-balled the thing, as you suggest Lynn might have done, I personally would have written something like, "based on my brief analysis, I am of the opinion ...." or "I believe ...". In such an instance I certainly would not have written "Player X is probably classification Y". And I am not a technical writer or journalist, or anything. That sort of phrasing just seems appropriate if it were truly a rough opinion.

So that leaves options b) or c) open, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the first bolded part, who here besides yourself admitted this?

To the second bolded point, Edman accused Lynn in his blog and a message board. Is professionalism required in either medium as opposed to a newspaper column?

My take on the whole thing - and it is only opinion, feel free to dismiss if one would like - is Lynn used the turn of phrase, "player X is probably a type A free agent." For me, using probably in this context means:

a) it is an obvious classification for one to make, or

b) if it is not obvious, then I studied the information sufficiently to state with certainty, or

c) if I didn't study it, I cite a source that did study it.

I don't think the clasifications are obvious. Further, if I spit-balled the thing, as you suggest Lynn might have done, I personally would have written something like, "based on my brief analysis, I am of the opinion ...." or "I believe ...". In such an instance I certainly would not have written "Player X is probably classification Y". And I am not a technical writer or journalist, or anything. That sort of phrasing just seems appropriate if it were truly a rough opinion.

So that leaves options b) or c) open, in my view.

Oblong flat out agreed. Shelton was one that agreed about Veritek. That's why I mentioned a few. I make the third. There may have been others but those were the three I could recall.

Probably to me means that's what he thinks but he's not entirely sure. I can say right now that Al Kaline is probably the best right fielder in Tigers history. I won't cite a reference for that. Just through sheer knowledge that's what I think. Everything doesn't get cited. In a column you don't write every sentence with the phrase "Based on my opinion." You just don't. I am reading my column from Sunday right now. I think based on what you just posted I would've had to type that phrase at least five times in the first three paragraphs. And the first paragraph is one sentence long. It's a column. We already know it's his opinion. That's why it's a column. That's life. If it's shoddy, then it's shoddy. I can't make you change your mind.

This is a case of one person stating an opinion that probably any of us could've come to through a variety of sources and another accusing him of specifically taking it from his work without any sort of substantial evidence. Yet the one doing the accusing is right?

To me professionalism equates to a ton of things. I think Lee, Edman an Cruzer want people to respect their blogs. They put a lot of hard work into them and they are good blogs - they do a lot of good work. I think they generally reflect a lot of professionalism in their blogs - possibly more than many other traditional media resources. However, attacking someone else's professionalism without foundation and without giving that other person a chance to view his/her opinion - that's not professionalism. Even if he was to end up being right - the path traveled doesn't justify the means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You also have to remember Henning probably has a better grasp on the talent of these players than maybe a few of us do.

Is this some kind of joke..speak for yourself.

Henning is devoid of player evaluation skills period and thats actually the best thing I can say about hisTiger knowledge.

The fact that he is paid for his opinions and they are so poorly reearched speaks volumes to either his work ethic,his baseball IQ or his sources.

In fact if he just read Lee and Eddie's blogs or paid the subscription fee for the "Micro and OU's" premium content, in 10 minutes a day his work product would improve 100%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Without looking, tell me where you think these players qualify: Type A, Type B, or no Type (there is not Type C anymore)

Ivan Rodriguez

Rod Barajas

Paul LoDuca

Raul Ibanez

Ken Griffey

Adam Dunn

Milton Bradley

Jim Thome

Cliff Floyd

Sean Casey

Eric Hinske

Moises Alou

Pat Burrell

Mike Cameron

Juan Uribe

Mark Ellis

Orlando Cabrera

Mark Grudzelanek

Mark Loretta

Orlando Hudson

Casey Blake

Ray Durham

Mike Mussina

Tim Wakefield

Derek Lowe

Paul Byrd

Braden Looper

Jamie Moyer

Brad Penny

John Smoltz

Oliver Perez

Darren Oliver

Trever Miller

Dennys Reyes

Eddie Guardado

Brian Shouse

Brian Fuentes

Russ Springer

Doug Brocail

Trever Hoffman

Eric Gagne

It would be a fun contest to predict the type of these players. I don't even know the 5 categories that they use to type them, but if someone started a thread telling me the 5 categories and with this list of names, it would be fun to try to guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is this some kind of joke..speak for yourself.

Henning is devoid of player evaluation skills period and thats actually the best thing I can say about hisTiger knowledge.

The fact that he is paid for his opinions and they are so poorly reearched speaks volumes to either his work ethic,his baseball IQ or his sources.

In fact if he just read Lee and Eddie's blogs or paid the subscription fee for the "Micro and OU's" premium content, in 10 minutes a day his work product would improve 100%.

Even if that's true, and I'm not saying it isn't. Maybe most people are more intelligent about the players in MLB than he is. It still doesn't mean he couldn't have come up with a legit ranking of these players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably to me means that's what he thinks but he's not entirely sure. I can say right now that Al Kaline is probably the best right fielder in Tigers history. I won't cite a reference for that. Just through sheer knowledge that's what I think.

This isn't the same thing at all. Henning called him a Type A which denotes something factual. If he had said that Varitek was one of the best catchers in the American League that would be one thing. It would be incorrect, but clearly an opinion.

Calling him a Type A is more akin to saying that Al Kaline hit 399 homers.

This is a case of one person stating an opinion that probably any of us could've come to through a variety of sources and another accusing him of specifically taking it from his work without any sort of substantial evidence. Yet the one doing the accusing is right?

To me professionalism equates to a ton of things. I think Lee, Edman an Cruzer want people to respect their blogs. They put a lot of hard work into them and they are good blogs - they do a lot of good work. I think they generally reflect a lot of professionalism in their blogs - possibly more than many other traditional media resources. However, attacking someone else's professionalism without foundation and without giving that other person a chance to view his/her opinion - that's not professionalism. Even if he was to end up being right - the path traveled doesn't justify the means.

Other than the titling of the thread, I don't think that Ed has done anything wrong. He probably should have followed up with Henning first (who is typically responsive). The stuff on his blog is pretty benign and I don't think it was an attack at all. If he calculated it, I would be astonished. If it is opinion it should have been stated as such more clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oblong flat out agreed. Shelton was one that agreed about Veritek. That's why I mentioned a few. I make the third. There may have been others but those were the three I could recall.

Probably to me means that's what he thinks but he's not entirely sure. I can say right now that Al Kaline is probably the best right fielder in Tigers history. I won't cite a reference for that. Just through sheer knowledge that's what I think. Everything doesn't get cited. In a column you don't write every sentence with the phrase "Based on my opinion." You just don't. I am reading my column from Sunday right now. I think based on what you just posted I would've had to type that phrase at least five times in the first three paragraphs. And the first paragraph is one sentence long. It's a column. We already know it's his opinion. That's why it's a column. That's life. If it's shoddy, then it's shoddy. I can't make you change your mind.

This is a case of one person stating an opinion that probably any of us could've come to through a variety of sources and another accusing him of specifically taking it from his work without any sort of substantial evidence. Yet the one doing the accusing is right?

To me professionalism equates to a ton of things. I think Lee, Edman an Cruzer want people to respect their blogs. They put a lot of hard work into them and they are good blogs - they do a lot of good work. I think they generally reflect a lot of professionalism in their blogs - possibly more than many other traditional media resources. However, attacking someone else's professionalism without foundation and without giving that other person a chance to view his/her opinion - that's not professionalism. Even if he was to end up being right - the path traveled doesn't justify the means.

We will have to agree to disagree on the point of qualifying an opinion. To me, stating something is probably true indicates something that is either obvious (i.e. Al Kaline is probably the best RF in Tiger history) or the writer has a good understanding of the subject, and the reader should trust his/her opinion / judgment.

I personally do not think the classifications are obvious to many (if any) readers, which means the word choice 'probably' is an indicator to the reader to trust Lynn's opinion based on his personal knowledge / expertise. And if that expertise comes purely or largely from using someone else's data, some sort of qualification should be expected (e.g. 'based on the analyses I've seen, it appears player X will be Type A...'). It only takes a few words to qualify something as someone else's findings, so space ought not be a concern. It is hard for me to imagine an otherwise good article ruined by the inclusion of such a qualificiation.

Had I looked at the Free Agents briefly and attempted to make some sort of guess as to what the various classifications are (which is what you suggest), I certainly would not write 'player X will probably be a class A free agent' because I wouldn't have a good understanding of the subject matter. I would state 'I believe player X will be a class A free agent', which is exactly one more word than the former.

But that is just me, and it is just semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't the same thing at all. Henning called him a Type A which denotes something factual. If he had said that Varitek was one of the best catchers in the American League that would be one thing. It would be incorrect, but clearly an opinion.

Calling him a Type A is more akin to saying that Al Kaline hit 399 homers.

Other than the titling of the thread, I don't think that Ed has done anything wrong. He probably should have followed up with Henning first (who is typically responsive). The stuff on his blog is pretty benign and I don't think it was an attack at all. If he calculated it, I would be astonished. If it is opinion it should have been stated as such more clearly.

He said "Exhibit A there is Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, a likely Type A free agent "

I think that's an opinion.

Scenario: I come out with a formula where I am pretty sure I've cracked a mathematical formula on who makes the HOF and in my analysis I say Gary Sheffield will make it. A writer is talking about Hall of Famers from Florida and calls Gary Sheffield a "likely Hall of Famer" should he source me?

Jason Varitek and these other guys will be one of 3 things. Type A, Type B, or Nothing. There'a 33% chance you will be right. It's not a stretch for a writer to guess on these.

Should anybody out there who offers an opinion on what types FA will be credit Ed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This isn't the same thing at all. Henning called him a Type A which denotes something factual. If he had said that Varitek was one of the best catchers in the American League that would be one thing. It would be incorrect, but clearly an opinion.

Calling him a Type A is more akin to saying that Al Kaline hit 399 homers.

Other than the titling of the thread, I don't think that Ed has done anything wrong. He probably should have followed up with Henning first (who is typically responsive). The stuff on his blog is pretty benign and I don't think it was an attack at all. If he calculated it, I would be astonished. If it is opinion it should have been stated as such more clearly.

It was an opinion, so I don't know where you get that was factual. It was his opinion he likely was a Type A guy. That's an opinion to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was an opinion, so I don't know where you get that was factual. It was his opinion he likely was a Type A guy. That's an opinion to me.

Exactly. It's an opinion piece. Columnists don't have to write "I believe" or "I think" before everything. It's implied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said "Exhibit A there is Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, a likely Type A free agent "

I think that's an opinion.

Scenario: I come out with a formula where I am pretty sure I've cracked a mathematical formula on who makes the HOF and in my analysis I say Gary Sheffield will make it. A writer is talking about Hall of Famers from Florida and calls Gary Sheffield a "likely Hall of Famer" should he source me?

Jason Varitek and these other guys will be one of 3 things. Type A, Type B, or Nothing. There'a 33% chance you will be right. It's not a stretch for a writer to guess on these.

Should anybody out there who offers an opinion on what types FA will be credit Ed?

Thank you Oblong. I wish I came up with this post. I wasn't smart enough to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He said "Exhibit A there is Red Sox catcher Jason Varitek, a likely Type A free agent "

I think that's an opinion.

I don't think it is an opinion. it involves factual data. Either he is a Type A or he's not. An opinion would be: "Varitek is a good catcher". That's a subjective statement.

I think one of the problems we are having here is the level of trust in Henning's knowledge of the issue. If one of the Baseball Prospectus writers said "Varitek is a likely Type A", some would be less likely to question it because they have proven to be thorough in researching facts. Henning, on the other hand, usually just states opinions so if he includes something factual in his column, we question where he got it. Others have more confidence in Hennings ability to get facts right so they don't question it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we just take things different. If any columnist says an outcome is likely then I am assuming that's their opinion.

Even Ed's work is an opinion, not factual. Nothing's factual until Elias releases their rankings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should anybody out there who offers an opinion on what types FA will be credit Ed?

Actually yes because there is no reason to resort to opinions except on a few fringe guys where Ed admits it is a gray area. It's no different than a writer offering up an opinion on what someone's batting average was in 2008. Would it be okay if I was writing and I said "Brandon Inge probably hit .264 last year."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think it is an opinion. it involves factual data. Either he is a Type A or he's not. An opinion would be: "Varitek is a good catcher". That's a subjective statement.

I think one of the problems we are having here is the level of trust in Henning's knowledge of the issue. If one of the Baseball Prospectus writers said "Varitek is a likely Type A", some would be less likely to question it because they have proven to be thorough in researching facts. Henning, on the other hand, usually just states opinions so if he includes something factual in his column, we question where he got it. Others have more confidence in Hennings ability to get facts right so they don't question it.

If the info isn't out there, and he's saying it's likely, its an opinion. He can't say anything factually. The credibility of the person may change your opinion how credible it is, but because it isn't a fact, it isn't truth. He says likely. He's not sure but that's his guess.

P.S. I saw you didn't cite where you got those Tigers averages in your blog. :classic:

I saw you did the next chart. I just pulling your leg. I would've done the same thing. It looks like when I get back here tomorrow I need to read that article. It looks like an interesting one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually yes because there is no reason to resort to opinions except on a few fringe guys where Ed admits it is a gray area. It's no different than a writer offering up an opinion on what someone's batting average was in 2008. Would it be okay if I was writing and I said "Brandon Inge probably hit .264 last year."

What Brandon Inge batted last year is documented. An opinion on something that hasn't been determined is just that - an opinion. People that don't even know Ed's list is out there are being forced to attribute it? Really?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Brandon Inge batted last year is documented. An opinion on something that hasn't been determined is just that - an opinion. People that don't even know Ed's list is out there are being forced to attribute it? Really?

If you're a baseball writer who doesn't know about Ed's list you are a very ignorant baseball writer and probably shouldn't have the title of baseball writer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually yes because there is no reason to resort to opinions except on a few fringe guys where Ed admits it is a gray area. It's no different than a writer offering up an opinion on what someone's batting average was in 2008. Would it be okay if I was writing and I said "Brandon Inge probably hit .264 last year."

--------------------------

The Tigers placed Virgil Vasquez on waivers and he was claimed by the Red Sox today. Vasquez had a strong showing in the AFL in 2006 and got a couple shots to start in 2007. However he struggled in 2008 for AAA and even the pitching starved Tigers didn’t call him up.

The timing of this is a little odd. Could it be that the Tigers were clearing 40 man roster space to announce a trade at the completion of the World Series? If so why not just jettison Dane Sardinha or Macay McBride (who also could be on waivers, we just don’t know it)? Most likely this is roster pruning heading into the offseason. With Vasquez they probably would have liked to have kept him, but not at the cost of a spot on the 40 man.

------------------------------

Took this right off your blog. You say Vasquez had a strong showing in the AFL. Who do you attribute that to to base that opinion? Don't see it. There is a lot of opinion in this post that has no attribution whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're a baseball writer who doesn't know about Ed's list you are a very ignorant baseball writer and probably shouldn't have the title of baseball writer.

Call him ignorant if you want. People can base opinions on different sources of information. Believe it of not, Ed isn't the only one that can base an opinion in this info. Maybe he's the best. Maybe he's clearly the best. But people can create their own opinions if they want. And it doesn't make it wrong.

Like I said I did the same thing for the MHSAA playoffs. I had a good gauge where a few teams were going to be paired with and I knew there were sites out there that were supposedly pretty accurate. It's still their opinion over mine. And guess what, the few projections I made (a week early by the way) came out pretty accurate. I thought Fenton had a good chance of playing Davison and Linden had a good chance of playing West - providing something didn't happen that put those two in the same division.

I couldn't write this without finding another source or making my own opinion based on what I know? Now you are just not making sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually yes because there is no reason to resort to opinions except on a few fringe guys where Ed admits it is a gray area. It's no different than a writer offering up an opinion on what someone's batting average was in 2008. Would it be okay if I was writing and I said "Brandon Inge probably hit .264 last year."

I don't get your point. There is a reason to resort to opinions on something where we don't yet know the answer to. That's all we can do. Brandon Ine's batting average last year is a matter of historical record. The free agent classes are not because they haven't been released yet.

Did writers never speculate on free agent classes before Ed wrote his blog? Because he published an analysis on it now they are supposed to not do that anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess we just take things different. If any columnist says an outcome is likely then I am assuming that's their opinion.

Even Ed's work is an opinion, not factual. Nothing's factual until Elias releases their rankings.

I don't think Edman gave an opinion. He reported the the results produced by his algorithm and stated that his algorithm might give slightly different results from the Elias algorithm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
--------------------------

The Tigers placed Virgil Vasquez on waivers and he was claimed by the Red Sox today. Vasquez had a strong showing in the AFL in 2006 and got a couple shots to start in 2007. However he struggled in 2008 for AAA and even the pitching starved Tigers didn’t call him up.

The timing of this is a little odd. Could it be that the Tigers were clearing 40 man roster space to announce a trade at the completion of the World Series? If so why not just jettison Dane Sardinha or Macay McBride (who also could be on waivers, we just don’t know it)? Most likely this is roster pruning heading into the offseason. With Vasquez they probably would have liked to have kept him, but not at the cost of a spot on the 40 man.

------------------------------

Took this right off your blog. You say Vasquez had a strong showing in the AFL. Who do you attribute that to to base that opinion? Don't see it. There is a lot of opinion in this post that has no attribution whatsoever.

I never asked him to attribute opinion. I asked him to attribute fact. And not just any fact. Fact that wasn't made available until a single person compiled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think Edman gave an opinion. He reported the the results produced by his algorithm and stated that his algorithm might give slightly different results from the Elias algorithm.

So Lynn Henning is supposed to compare his opinions or writings to an algorithm? That makes me less convinced he's supposed to source him. Maybe Lynn has his own algorithm. We're only allowed to have one out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,590
    • Total Posts
      2,903,169
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...